Anticipatory bail granted where no injury was sustained and the alleged offences were not punishable by life imprisonment or death.

The petitioner, Accused No. 1, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 56/2026 registered by Camp Police Station, Belagavi.

The complaint alleged that, on 14 July 2026, several persons came to the Union Gymkhana Club looking for the petitioner; the complainant was assaulted and a shot was fired at him, though he escaped. The petitioner was alleged to have fired towards the complainant, and the complainant’s car was damaged.

The case was registered under Sections 109, 126(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner claimed false implication and absence of injury or recovery; the State opposed bail, citing his alleged criminal antecedents, rowdy-sheeter status, and risk of witness tampering.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 56/2026.

2. Whether the petitioner’s alleged antecedents and the State’s concern about witness tampering warranted refusal of anticipatory bail.

The Court considered the petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, identified in the order as corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for anticipatory bail.

It stated that bail consideration involves the nature and circumstances of the offence, the accused’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, risk of absconding or reoffending, likelihood of witness tampering, and the accused’s character and antecedents; a bail court need not conduct a mini-trial by scrutinising the prosecution case in detail.

The Court also noted that the alleged offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

The Court considered the allegation that the petitioner fired towards the complainant, but also noted that no injury had been sustained and that the complainant’s car was damaged.

Applying the stated bail factors, it concluded that the material before it did not provide reasonable and sufficient grounds, at that stage, to believe the petitioner guilty of the alleged offences.

Although the State raised concerns about antecedents and possible witness tampering, the Court granted bail subject to conditions addressing attendance, cooperation, non-interference with witnesses, and future conduct.

Conditions included execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, attendance before the Trial Court, cooperation with the trial, no intimidation or tampering with evidence or witnesses, no similar offences, and weekly attendance at the police station for six months or until filing of the final report, whichever occurred earlier.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to disposal of the petition.